Christianity and Homosexuality

The homosexuals and lesbians have gained considerable political and social momentum in America. They have "come out" as the term goes, left their closets, and are knocking on the doors of your homes. Through TV, radio, newspapers, and magazines, they are preaching their doctrine of tolerance, equality, justice, and love. They do not want to be perceived as abnormal or dangerous. They want acceptance and they want you to welcome them with open, loving arms, approving of what they do.

In numerous states in America several bills have been introduced by the pro-homosexual politicians to ensure that the practice of homosexuality is a right protected by law. Included in these bills are statements affecting employers, renters, and schools. Churches could possibly be required to hire a quota of homosexuals, and "sensitivity" training courses would be "strongly urged" in various work places. There is even legislation that would force the state to pick up the tab for the defense of homosexual agendas in lawsuits while requiring the non-homosexual side to pay out of his/her pocket. Is this fair? Of course not. But fairness isn't the real issue here. It is social engineering. Think about it, the homosexual community wants legal protection for having intercourse with people of the same sex. And, if that weren't enough, it wants its views taught in schools, promoted over the airwaves, and codified in literature.

The Christian church, however, has not stood idly by. When it has spoken out against this political immorality, the cry of "separation of church and state" is shouted at the so-called "religious bigots." But when the homosexual community attempts to use political power to try and control the church and get its agenda taught in schools, no such cry of bigotry is heard from the sacred halls of the media. Why? Because it isn't politically correct to side with Christians.

What does the Bible say?

The Bible, as God's Word, reveals God's moral character and it shapes the morality of the Christian. The Bible has much to say about homosexuality:

Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them."

Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

With such clear statements against homosexuality, it is difficult to see how different groups can say the Bible supports homosexuality. But they try by redefining love, marriage, sex, homosexuality, etc., in order to accomplish their goal. The truth is that God created man and woman, not man and man, or woman and woman. Nevertheless, the Bible is a powerful book, and because of that the homosexuals often try and make the Bible agree with their agenda. But it doesn't work. The Bible does not support homosexuality, as we have seen from the scriptures above.

Unlike other sins, this sexual sin has a judgment administered by God Himself: He gives them over to their passions (Rom. 1:26-28). This means that their hearts are allowed to be hardened by their sins. As a result, they can no longer see the error of what they are doing. Without an awareness of their sinfulness, there will be no repentance. Without repentance, there will be no forgiveness. Without forgiveness, there is no salvation.

Should homosexuals be allowed to marry one another?

In this politically correct climate that relinquishes morality to the relativistic whims of society, stating that homosexuals should not marry is becoming unpopular. Should a woman be allowed to marry another woman? Should a man be allowed to marry another man? Should they be given legal protection and special rights to practice their homosexuality? No, they should not.

The Bible, of course, condemns homosexuality. It takes no leap of logic to discern that homosexual marriage is also condemned. But our society does not rely on the Bible for its moral truth. Instead, it relies on humanistic and relativistic morals upon which it builds its ethical structure.

Homosexuality is not natural. Just look at the male and female bodies. They are obviously designed to couple. The natural design is apparent. It is not natural to couple male with male and female with female. It would be like trying to fit two screws together or two nuts together and then say, "See, its natural for them to go together."

Homosexuals argue that homosexuality is natural since it occurs in the animal world. But this is problematic. It is true that this behavior occurs in the animal kingdom, but it is also true that we see animals eating their prey alive and even their own young. We see savagery, cruelty, and extreme brutality. Yet, we do not condone such behavior in our own society. Proponents of the natural order argument should not pick-and-choose the situations that best fit their agendas. They should be consistent and not compare us to animals. We are not animals. We are made in God's image.

Where will it end?

Political protection of a sexual practice is ridiculous. I do not believe it is proper to pass laws stating that homosexuals have 'rights' to have sex with one another and then redefine marriage to include their views. If they can do that, then where will it end? What about pedophilia or bestiality? These are also sexual practices. Should they, too, be protected by law? If homosexuality is protected legally, why not those as well?

What should be the Christian's Response to the Homosexual?

Just because someone is a homosexual does not mean that we cannot love him (or her) or pray for him (or her). Homosexuality is a sin, and like any other sin it needs to be dealt with in the only way possible. It needs to be laid at the cross and repented of.

Christians should pray for the salvation of the homosexual the same way they would any other person in sin. They should treat homosexuals with the same dignity as they would anyone else because, like it or not, they are made in the image of God. However, this does not mean that Christians should approve of their sin. Not at all. Christians should not compromise their witness for a politically correct opinion that is shaped by guilt and fear.

In fact, the following verses should be kept in mind when dealing with homosexuals.

"Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity. 6 Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned, as it were, with salt, so that you may know how you should respond to each person," (Col. 4:5-6).

"But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith," (1 Tim. 1:5).

You do not win people to the Lord by condemning them and calling them names. This is why God says to speak with wisdom, grace, and love. Let the love of Christ flow through you so that the homosexuals can see true love and turn to Christ instead of away from Him.

Objections Answered

1) If you want to say homosexuality is wrong based on the O.T. laws, then you must still uphold all of the laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

The Old Testament laws are categorized in three groups: the civil, the priestly, and the moral. The civil laws must be understood in the context of a theocracy. Though the Jewish nation in the Old Testament was often headed by a king, it was a theocratic system with the Scriptures as a guide to the nation. Those laws that fall under this category are not applicable today because we are not under a theocracy.

The priestly laws dealing with the Levitical and Aaronic priesthoods were representative of the future and true High Priest, Jesus, who offered Himself as a sacrifice on the cross. Since Jesus fulfilled the priestly laws, they are no longer necessary to be followed and are not applicable now.

The moral laws, on the other hand, are not abolished because the moral laws are based upon the character of God. Since God's holy character does not change, the moral laws do not change either. Therefore, the moral laws are still in effect.

In the New Testament we do not see a reestablishment of the civil or priestly laws, but we do see a reestablishment of the moral law. This is why we see New Testament condemnation of homosexuality as a sin, but not with the associated death penalty.

2) Homosexuality is a sin if committed outside of a loving, committed, relationship. But a committed homosexual relationship is acceptable to God. This is a fallacious argument.

Homosexuality is never defined in the Bible in an acceptable behavior if it were practiced by individuals who had a loving relationship with each other. Homosexuality is always condemned. Homosexual acts are not natural acts and they are against God's-created order. As stated above in the article, male and female are designed to fit together -- in more ways than one. This is how God made us, and he made us this way so that we could carry out his command of filling the earth with people. Homosexuality is an aberration of God's created order and makes it impossible to fulfill the command that God has given mankind.

Whether or not a homosexual couple is committed to each other is irrelevant to the argument since love and feelings do not change moral truths. If a couple, not married to each other but married to someone else, commits adultery, yet they are committed to loving each other, their sin is not excused.

If homosexuality is made acceptable because the homosexual couple "loves" each other and are committed to each other, by that logic we can say that couples of the same sex or even of different sexes who love each other and are committed to each other in a relationship automatically make that relationship morally correct. The problem is that love is used as an excuse to violate Scripture. Second, it would mean that such things as pedophilia would be acceptable if the "couple" had a loving and committed relationship to each other. Third, the subjectivity of what it means to "love" and be "committed" to another person can be used to justify almost any sort of behavior.

3) Where homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible, it is not how we relate to it in the 21st century. It meant something different to the people in Biblical times and has nothing to do with modern day homosexuality.

The four Scriptures listed above refute this idea. Let's look at what they say and see if there is some misunderstanding: The first Scripture in Leviticus says that it is an abomination for a man to lie with another man as he would lie with a woman. Obviously this is referring to sexual relationship, and it is condemned. The second Scripture in Leviticus says the same thing. The third Scripture in 1 Corinthians outright condemns homosexuality. And finally, Romans clearly describes a homosexual act as being indecent.

There is no mistake about it, the view of homosexuality in the Old Testament as well as the New is a very negative one. It is consistently condemned as being sinful.

Whether or not people in the 21st-century think homosexuality is acceptable or not has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it is sinful before God. God exists, and he is the standard of righteousness. Whether or not anyone believes this, or believes that morality is a flowing and vague system of development over time, has no bearing on truth. God has condemned homosexuality as a sin in the Bible. It is a sin that needs to be repented of, the same as any other sin, and the only way to receive forgiveness is through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

4) The sin of Sodom was actually the sin of inhospitality.

This is a common error made by supporters of homosexuality. The problem with this explanation is that it does not account for the offering of Lot's daughter to the men outside the home, a sinful act indeed, but one that was rejected by the men outside who desired to have relations with the two angels in Lot's home. Gen. 19:5 says, "and they called to Lot and said to him, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.'" Those men wanted to have sexual relations with the angels who appeared also as males. Does it make sense to claim that God destroyed two cities because the inhabitants weren't nice to visitors? If that were the case, then shouldn't God destroy every household that is rude to guests? Gen. 18:20 says that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was "exceedingly grave." Not being hospitable to someone has never been considered an exceedingly grave sin, especially in the Bible. But, going against God's created order in violation of his command to fill and multiply the earth in the act of homosexuality is an exceedingly grave sin. In fact, we know that it is exceedingly grave because in Romans we read about the judgment of God upon the homosexuals, in that he gives them over to the depravity of their hearts and minds. This is a serious judgment of God upon the sinner because it means that the sinner will not become convicted of his or her sins and will not repent. Without repentance there is no salvation, and without salvation there is damnation. Therefore, the argument that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because they were not hospitable carries no validity.

1. The word "homosexual" in the NASB version is the Greek aρσενοκοίτης (arsenokoites). It occurs two times in the New Testament. The KJV translates it as abuser of (ones) self with mankind once, and defile (ones) self with mankind once. 1 one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual. (Strong, J. (1996). The exhaustive concordance of the Bible : Showing every word of the test of the common English version of the canonical books, and every occurrence of each word in regular order. (electronic ed.) (G733). Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship.) The 1901 ASV, the KJV, translate it as "abusers of themselves." The NASB and NKJV translate it as "homosexuals." The NIV as "homosexual offenders." The RSV as "sexual perverts."